Professional Responsibilities and Procedures Committee (PRPC)

Report to Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC)

November 14, 2005

At the September 2005 PRPC meeting, members considered three items:

1. A senator proposed changing Code 402.10.3 to allow nominations for senate president-elect to be solicited by email prior to the formal process during the April meeting. The PRPC saw nothing in the code to limit informal solicitation of nominations prior to the formal process. We did wish to recommend that senators be notified well in advance of the April meeting of the eligibility requirements for election to president-elect (402.7.3) and the procedure for election (402.10.3) so they will be well-prepared for the nomination process at the April Senate meeting.

2. A faculty member proposed codification of an exclusion from external review for lecturers going up for promotion, and offered draft language. Such exclusions were felt to be appropriate when teaching constitutes the majority of the appointment, and are apparently now routinely made on a case-by-case basis by the provost. After discussion regarding the percentage teaching that would trigger the exclusion, PRPC proposed language that could be added to the code. See PRPC Attachment 1.

3. A faculty member proposed codifying repercussions for members of the Senate who violate standards of conduct that are noted in Code 403.3. After discussion, PRPC concluded a problem existed (i.e., senators currently may be dismissed only for failing to attend meetings), and proposed considering draft code at the next PRPC meeting.

At the October 2005 meeting, PRPC considered the following items:

1. To address Item 3 above, PRPC proposed changes that could be made to two sections of the code. One change (Code 403.3) would highlight the current standards of conduct for all university faculty, and the other would  codify repercussions for serious infractions (Code 402.3). PRPC member did, however, feel the bar should be high, and recommended a two-thirds majority agree before any action is taken. See PRPC Attachment 2.

2. After reviewing the charge to AFT from FSEC dated October 5, 2005, PRPC chose to provide informal input to Kim Oppenshaw (AFT Chair), suggesting that the concern expressed by his committee might be addressed adequately by working with the Committee on Committees. The following was emailed to the chair of AFT from the chair of PRPC, and copied to the Senate chair: “We are concerned that making committee appointments based on gender or ethnicity could lead to over-utilization of some individuals on committees. We suggest the Committee on Committees remain sensitive to issues of diversity.”

3. A faculty member expressed concern to PRPC that tenure advisory committees are continuing to be used by deans to review the files of candidates for tenure, although these committees are not specified as part of the tenure and promotion process. The sense of the PRPC was that in large colleges, deans may need assistance in reviewing candidates’ files, but that such a committee should report their recommendations in a letter signed by all members with a copy provided to the candidate, as is the case with other such reports [Code 405.7.1(2) and 405.7.2(2)]. PRPC drafted language that could be added to Code 405.7.2(4), and will discuss it at the next PRPC meeting.

4. A faculty member expressed concern to PRPC with language in Code 407.7.2 (Reasons for Non-Renewal) that reads: “There are only three reasons for nonrenewal: cessation of extramural funding, unsatisfactory performance of the faculty member's assigned role (policies 405.6.1 and 11.1) or failure to satisfy the criteria for the award of tenure.” The concern was that “cessation of extramural funding” could be read very strictly to mean the loss of an insignificant amount of funding was grounds for nonrenewal. PRPC agreed some further definition of the phrase “cessation of extramural funding” was desirable, and drafted language that will be discussed at the next PRPC meeting.

5. A senator proposed codifying a requirement that all committees of the Faculty Senate meet regularly. The sense of PRPC members was that committee meetings should be required to meet the duties of a particular committee, or be called by written request of the chair, committee members or the FSEC. Such language exists to some extent with reference to AFT, BFW, and PRPC, but could be moved to apply to all Senate committees. Draft changes will be circulated and discussed at the next PRPC meeting.

6. A faculty member expressed concern to the PRPC that language regarding the annual meeting of tenure advisory committees needed further definition, specifically to clarify if the meeting be strictly physical, or may members (e.g., on sabbatical) participate in other ways. Here is a sample of the language that is currently used:

405.7.1 (2) Evaluation and recommendation by the tenure advisory committee.

After the initial meeting, the tenure advisory committee shall meet with the candidate at least annually and review the candidate's file and supplementary material to evaluate progress toward tenure.

The question is, what is the definition of “meet”? The sense of the PRPC committee was that all tenure advisory committee members should be required to participate in the meeting, but that electronic participation was already in common use and should be allowed. Draft language to address this issue will be circulated and discussed at the next PRPC meeting.

7. The members of PRPC discussed the timetable for the 3^rd year meeting and other events for tenure-track faculty. Although there is an earlier timetable in that year, the procedure specified by the code (essentially to vote on whether the candidate is recommended for renewal) is the same in the third as in other years. References to a third-year timetable seems to be a vestige of earlier procedures or a reflection of procedures at other universities, where candidates do not have a unique committee that meets with them each year. This is a case where the code is apparently not consistent with practice; however, no action was taken.

8. A senator expressed concern to the PRPC that the code related to a request for an extension of the pre-tenure probationary period due to the birth of a child contains confusing terminology. Draft language to clarify Code 405.1.4 was provided to PRPC members for discussion at the next PRPC meeting.